Atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor and cognitive scientist Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini have written the book What Darwin Got Wrong, where they develop a criticism of Darwinian theory of evolution. The book will be available in February, 2010.
Professor of Cell Biology Stuart Newman has praised this book with these words: "Evolution needs a persuasive theory if the struggle for public acceptance is to be won. Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini’s bold treatise, What Darwin Got Wrong, convincingly shows that natural selection is not that theory. Drawing on scientific literature spanning the molecular, behavioral, and cognitive scales, with sophisticated excursions into evolutionary-developmental biology and the physics of complex systems, the authors perform a philosophical dismantling of the standard model of evolutionary change that is likely irreversible. Their unambiguous grounding in the factuality of evolution renders this work a service to science and a setback for its opponents"
As you know, one of the strategies of darwinists and atheists is to conflate the fact of evolution with the Darwinian theory of evolution. This strategy give them rhetorical adventages, because if you challenge or criticize the Darwinian model of evolution, you'll be stigmatized as a "creationist" (who denies the fact of evolution). (A similar strategy is employed by apologists of mainstream medicine when they stigmatize the critics of the HIV/AIDS theory as "AIDS denialists"). These kind of fallacies are easy to spot, but they're effective as a method of emotional self-validation between and support for believers (in this case, believers in Darwinism), and as a way to avoid cognitive dissonance in the face of contrary or uncomfortable evidence.
Given that many atheists have weird obsessions with God, and they see Him everywere, their intellect is impaired to make conceptual distinctions when discussing about evolution and Darwinism with critics of the latter. Constantly and predictably, they interpret any criticisms of Darwinism as a defense of "creationism" and, therefore, as religion-driven (and therefore, unscientific) criticisms. An example of this irrationality and bigotry is Richard Dawkins's reply to the criticisms against Darwinism by Richard Milton.
In addition to having psychological/emotional causes, these irrational and emotional responses by some bigoted atheists, secularists and naturalists are also caused by what naturalistic philosopher Thomas Nagel has called "The Cosmic Authority Problem" (See my post about Atheism and the Fear of God).
So, the impairment of rational faculties to do a rational and objective examination of the anti-Darwinian arguments has a emotional and an ideological component (in each case, you have to examine what component has more weight for individual materialistic atheists; but many of them, possibly most of them, have both of these components or factors causing their irrationality and emotional responses)
My prediction: Fodor's book will be rejected and criticized by naturalists and secularists on the grounds that it contributes to the "creationist" or "intelligent design" cause. Therefore, it has to be false and unscientific.
Finally, keep in mind that, technically, the falsehood of Darwinism doesn't implies the falsehood of atheism or metaphysical naturalism. In other words, even if Darwinism is false, metaphysical naturalism could be true, because the truth of the latter doesn't depend of the truth of the former. (As a matter of fact, in Europe, there are some nonreligious scientists working in scientific alternatives to Darwinism; as an example, see this paper by a Neo-Lamarckian scientist/biologist)
The reason why naturalists are so obsessed with defending Darwinism is because they're afraid (remember the irrational factors mentioned above) that if Darwinism is wrong, then creationism or intelligent design (which is different of "creationism") is true. This either/or mentality is another example of irrationality.
This is also the reason why the recent sympathetic review by atheist Thomas Nagel of ID theorist Stephen Meyer's lastest book has been replied with hostility and emotionality by some of the most extreme naturalists out there (as an example, read this atheist philosopher blog's entry). This is the predictable, consistent, emotional response of extreme naturalists when confronted with uncomfortable information which challenge their philosophical beliefs.
So, don't be suprised if Fodor's book is met with the same resistance, bias and emotional rejection by the "rational" naturalists.
Links of Interest:
-My post on Thomas Nagel and the Fear of God.
-Naturalist philosopher Alex Rosemberg's paper "The Disenchanted Naturalist's Guide to Reality"
-Naturalist David Macarthur's paper "Naturalism and Skepticism"
-Materialist philosopher William Lycan's paper on dualism.
Professor of Cell Biology Stuart Newman has praised this book with these words: "Evolution needs a persuasive theory if the struggle for public acceptance is to be won. Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini’s bold treatise, What Darwin Got Wrong, convincingly shows that natural selection is not that theory. Drawing on scientific literature spanning the molecular, behavioral, and cognitive scales, with sophisticated excursions into evolutionary-developmental biology and the physics of complex systems, the authors perform a philosophical dismantling of the standard model of evolutionary change that is likely irreversible. Their unambiguous grounding in the factuality of evolution renders this work a service to science and a setback for its opponents"
As you know, one of the strategies of darwinists and atheists is to conflate the fact of evolution with the Darwinian theory of evolution. This strategy give them rhetorical adventages, because if you challenge or criticize the Darwinian model of evolution, you'll be stigmatized as a "creationist" (who denies the fact of evolution). (A similar strategy is employed by apologists of mainstream medicine when they stigmatize the critics of the HIV/AIDS theory as "AIDS denialists"). These kind of fallacies are easy to spot, but they're effective as a method of emotional self-validation between and support for believers (in this case, believers in Darwinism), and as a way to avoid cognitive dissonance in the face of contrary or uncomfortable evidence.
Given that many atheists have weird obsessions with God, and they see Him everywere, their intellect is impaired to make conceptual distinctions when discussing about evolution and Darwinism with critics of the latter. Constantly and predictably, they interpret any criticisms of Darwinism as a defense of "creationism" and, therefore, as religion-driven (and therefore, unscientific) criticisms. An example of this irrationality and bigotry is Richard Dawkins's reply to the criticisms against Darwinism by Richard Milton.
In addition to having psychological/emotional causes, these irrational and emotional responses by some bigoted atheists, secularists and naturalists are also caused by what naturalistic philosopher Thomas Nagel has called "The Cosmic Authority Problem" (See my post about Atheism and the Fear of God).
So, the impairment of rational faculties to do a rational and objective examination of the anti-Darwinian arguments has a emotional and an ideological component (in each case, you have to examine what component has more weight for individual materialistic atheists; but many of them, possibly most of them, have both of these components or factors causing their irrationality and emotional responses)
My prediction: Fodor's book will be rejected and criticized by naturalists and secularists on the grounds that it contributes to the "creationist" or "intelligent design" cause. Therefore, it has to be false and unscientific.
Finally, keep in mind that, technically, the falsehood of Darwinism doesn't implies the falsehood of atheism or metaphysical naturalism. In other words, even if Darwinism is false, metaphysical naturalism could be true, because the truth of the latter doesn't depend of the truth of the former. (As a matter of fact, in Europe, there are some nonreligious scientists working in scientific alternatives to Darwinism; as an example, see this paper by a Neo-Lamarckian scientist/biologist)
The reason why naturalists are so obsessed with defending Darwinism is because they're afraid (remember the irrational factors mentioned above) that if Darwinism is wrong, then creationism or intelligent design (which is different of "creationism") is true. This either/or mentality is another example of irrationality.
This is also the reason why the recent sympathetic review by atheist Thomas Nagel of ID theorist Stephen Meyer's lastest book has been replied with hostility and emotionality by some of the most extreme naturalists out there (as an example, read this atheist philosopher blog's entry). This is the predictable, consistent, emotional response of extreme naturalists when confronted with uncomfortable information which challenge their philosophical beliefs.
So, don't be suprised if Fodor's book is met with the same resistance, bias and emotional rejection by the "rational" naturalists.
Links of Interest:
-My post on Thomas Nagel and the Fear of God.
-Naturalist philosopher Alex Rosemberg's paper "The Disenchanted Naturalist's Guide to Reality"
-Naturalist David Macarthur's paper "Naturalism and Skepticism"
-Materialist philosopher William Lycan's paper on dualism.
0 comments:
Post a Comment